PopeWatch: Time Envy

Saturday, December 14, AD 2013

 

VATICAN-POPE-AUDIENCE

 

 

 

From the only reliable source of Catholic news on the net, Eye of the Tiber:

VATICAN–Sources close to the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI reported that the Holy Father has been silently obsessing over Time Magazine’s recent choice of Pope Francis as “Person of the Year.” ”He got up as usual this morning,” said one source, “said his morning prayers and celebrated Mass. Then he sat down to check Yahoo News with his morning tea, like he always does. When he saw…it…he just got really quiet for a long time. Then when he noticed I was looking, he smiled at me and said, ‘good for him.’ It was weird. He said that without really opening his mouth. Like his teeth were still together as he said it.” Pope Francis is the third Bishop of Rome to be named “Person of the Year” by TIME, following Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II. EOTT’s source reported that Benedict then made another visit to his private chapel, where he remained for a good 20 minutes. He emerged and sighed deeply before going back to the Yahoo News site, which he reportedly read and re-read several times, at one point muttering under his breath, “Really? Molly Cyrus?” ”When he finished reading all the comments and refreshing the page a couple times to make sure there weren’t any new ones, he looked for other news sites and did the same thing,” said the source. “After that he went to Amazon.com and started reading reviews of his ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ books. He seemed to feel better after that.”

Continue reading...

27 Responses to PopeWatch: Time Envy

  • “PopeWatch hates to contradict Eye of the Tiber, but PopeWatch has heard that the reaction of Pope Benedict after learning that Pope Francis was Time’s Person of the Year was, “Is Time still being published?” ”
    Thank You, Donald McClarey for clearing the air. TEOTT was supposed to be funny, but it is not funny. It is however, a good example on how to deal with envy if Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI had any. My first reaction to the Time magazine was as yours: “Is Time still being published?” next came “and who cares?”

  • I’ve always considered Time and Newsweek the only popular news magazines worth reading.

  • Lol…do you consider them that bad? I guess they do pander to what people consider important rather than what may be of central importance according to soem other criteria. But then again, we need to know where the focus is at. It tells us about society if anything.

  • They are anachronisms Jon to the days before television when people needed news magazines to see pictures of events. The internet drove a stake through a dying format. You can get better coverage of the events of the day from many blogs, with usually better writing.

  • How backward of me….and to think not too long ago Time and Newsweek were thought almost essential.

  • EOTT must be desperate. I agree with Mary, this was an attempt at humor that falls mostly flat. I’ve read of his humor while he was a Cardinal, and it could be self-depreciating at times. The problem with this kind of writing is that many people will believe it to be true.

  • Time and Newsweek are liberal progressive pieces of manure best thrown into the garbage heap. May their avid readers so follow.

  • I’ve heard that, too, Paul. But then again, if they report on what’s happening and that’s their primary function, these magazines can’t have that much of an effect on people. The magazines are mirroring society. Of course society in turn mirrors what it sees and reads, so it’s interactive.
    All things really are interactive. I used to think it all starts at the philosophic level and works its way down. NOt really. After all, philosophy doesn’t happen in a vacuum, and for it to take off their must be a ready audience.
    So cheer up. No one’s going to become radical by reading Time or Newsweek!

  • ‘But then again, if they report on what’s happening and that’s their primary function…”

    They do NOT report on what’s happening. They disseminate their liberal progressive fetid, putrid, odiferous, malodorous fecal matter as some sort of august and learned instruction for the masses. They are godless hedonist libertines, outright supporters of the idolatrous Democratic Party, full of all manner of filth and moral disease and rot. I could go on. You get the idea.

  • “No one’s going to become radical by reading Time or Newsweek!

    Jon, I beg to differ.

    I grew up on the liberal press. I of course read of conservative criticisms, but I thought they were overstated. Back then I thought that liberals really were smarter, except when counting money.

    Then I happened to be at a public event involving a Reagan administration cabinet member. A few people in the audience tried to demonstrate against the cabinet member, but were booed down by the audience, to the point that they were throwing things at the protesters. A few minutes later I got to see a replay of the public television camera feeds, and they showed exactly what I had seen. Anyone who saw the video would have seen the same. I got home that night and CBS television news said “Cabinet member booed at public event”. They didn’t show any video.

    That was the event that told me that the conservatives were right, that the media engages in massive manipulation of the news. I have seen several more over the years to know this was not an isolated incident.

  • Yes, the news is arbitrarily picked to some degree, and it goes on to shape our perception of reality. Poeple decide upon what’s newsworthy oftentimes, and that would depend on their values. Also, people offer their slant. If someone beleives they are ‘riding the crest of the future’ they might want to highlight certain things and downplay some other things.

  • It has been decades since Time and Newsweek have been relevant. Newsweek was the national Democrat Party house organ as the Washington Compost was the Washington based house organ of the Democrat Party.

    I have little use for the Stupid Party (Republicans) and the Democrat Party is organized crime. Any mouthpiece of the Democrat Party is not allowed into my home, and that goes for Time. Newsweek ceased print publication….wonder why? Not really.

  • “It tells us about society if anything.”
    No, It does not, Jon. Only the truth has freedom of the press. The disclaimer that the opinion of the authors are not the opinion of the owners of the magazine may protect from lawsuit, but it is a fact that opinions are opinions related to only one individual.

  • Also, the MSM, including these publications, lies constantly by omission. They know about Obama’s radical leanings, communist associations, etc. but choose not to write about them. Scratch a liberal, get a hypocrit – every time.

  • If it is at all accurate, my heart breaks for him. However, to be ‘bothered’ by something like this is not really the Benedict I have come to know, love and respect.

    For Pope Benedict to really care about Time’s opinion is analogous to the Lord Jesus, when asking the disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” When answered, then ask, “And what does Herod’s Court has to say?”

  • This was a parody Botolph. Eye of the Tiber is a Catholic humor site. I apologize for any confusion.

  • Donald

    “Duh”-as I whack my forehead lol Thanks for the clarification lol

  • Yes, Paul…TIme and Newseek can be seen that way. The daily newspapers and the news on the internet reflect what’s important to people, often people of a pretty liberal persuasion. I’m not optimistic enough about the Republican party to completely write off the Democratic, though.

  • “I’m not optimistic enough about the Republican party to completely write off the Democratic, though.”

    I am not a Republican. I joined the Constitution Party whose platform is closest to Church teaching:

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/2012-2016-platform-and-resolutions/

    Furthermore, Jesus’ Kingdom is NOT of this world, and it is a Kingdom NOT of filling bellies with food that perishes but of filling souls with the Bread of Life.

  • That’s nice, Paul. I wish there were more people like you to get things stirred up. We need more independent and creative thought in politics, and I lament the all too simplistic polarization of our society today. I’m worried we’re falling victim to tribalism, among many other things.

  • Also, you reiterate the point I’ve made time and again: that God’s kingdom is not of this world. Happily, the kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our God and of his Christ who reigns forever. I still don’t entirely know what that means. I cannot ascertain the nature and extent of its implications for the world prior to the Lord’s return. This is grouped under the heading ‘eschatology’, a very confusing and contentious subject.

  • Nearly twenty years ago Time was giving away subscriptions to schools to try to get people to read– and incidentally to boost their subscription numbers. Our little school got something like 250 subscriptions. I was generally bored out of my mind, so I read it front to back for years.

    Bunch of then-50 something folks stuck in the 60s, when their college stuff was “edgy,” unable to recognize that they are the establishment. Even the kids that pretty much agreed with them thought they were lame and could see through about half of their spin. (Didn’t make the other half any less dangerous, but oy.)

  • That’s an interesting phenomenon. The boomers shaped by the 60’s revolution really did become the establishment if that’s what you’re saying. What they fought for largely became institutionalized–the status quo.

  • Jon: Eschew Time and Newsweek. Supplant them with the American Rifleman and the National Review.

  • Pingback: Pope Francis Shocked by Same-Sex Adoption - BigPulpit.com
  • I have kept the NewsWeek publication that they brought out afterJPJII death, that paid tribute to his life. They did a good job. It was a great edition.

    Don’t blanket rubbish these publications- their content is a mixed bag.

E. J. Dionne & Maureen Dowd Are Playing With A Dangerous Fire

Tuesday, September 28, AD 2010

In a recent column Washington Post columnist, E J Dionne noted that the Tea Party movement is a great scam. Quite an indictment coming from the self described progressive Catholic who still thinks government can never be big enough and the Church should tell the faithful more about the teachings of the agnostic Saul Alinsky than that of 2,000 year old teachings of the Catholic Church. Dionne has made it his business to comment on all matter of politics and religion for quite some time. His partner in left wing chicanery is New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd who never hesitates to go for the jugular.  Though she says he she comes from humble Washington DC roots, you would never know it by how she mocks those who really came from humble surrounding and never forgot it. She probably grew up with many Sarah Palin’s and Christine O’Donnell’s around her. Yet, I doubt she mocked many to their face as she gleefully does now to the backs of Palin and O’Donnell.

Dionne and Dowd seem to have it backwards, they don’t think citizens should voice their views about the fallacies of liberal Big Government, but they do believe everyone knows better than the divine about religion. This is quite common for liberals who often seem to think they are divine. Dionne and Dowd are part of a movement who thinks they should control government and religion, and those who disagree with them are often labeled as unintelligent; the worst sin as far as liberals are concerned. However, who is the unintelligent one? Big Government has never worked. It has only brought huge debt which has to be repaid by future generations. Individuals who go into debt face a series of tough measures. Yet Dionne and Dowd seem oblivious to this and advocate the same disastrous path for the government, the end result being tough measures for everyone.  In other words Big Government is a disaster that doesn’t work.

However, Big Government isn’t the only disaster Dionne and Dowd advocate. They want the Catholic Church to turn her back on its 2,000 year old teachings and embrace the Dictatorship of Relativism, so named by Pope Benedict XVI. Dionne and Dowd are happy to embrace dissident Catholics who espouse this sort of thinking. It seems Dionne and Dowd are more comfortable with the views of Marx, Alinsky and Freud than they are with Christ, St Paul, St Thomas Aquinas, St Joan of Arc and Pope Benedict XVI.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to E. J. Dionne & Maureen Dowd Are Playing With A Dangerous Fire

  • Apologies in advance: Top ten reasons to vote dem:

    10. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

    9. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

    8. I vote Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

    7. I vote Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

    6. I vote Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

    5. I vote Democrat because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies through abortion so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

    4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

    3. I vote Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.

    2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

    1. I vote Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my @$$ that it is unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

  • T Shaw did you come up with this? If you did something tells me that this might show up across the internet. Who knows old EJ and Maureen might heartily approve, not realizing your satire (well at 2-10.)